Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1763 (MAD)

V. Elumalai v. Commissioner

2014-06-27

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Though the prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondent herein to grant the interest accrued for the petitioners in their G.P.F. Accumulations due on the date of their respective retirement under Rule 13(1) and penal interest at the rate of 12% p.a. under Rule 13(4) of the General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules by disposing of their representation dated 05.08.2013, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider their representation dated 05.08.2013, in the light of the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8508 of 2011, as according to the petitioners, they are also similarly situated like the petitioners therein. 3. Since a limited prayer is made at the time of argument to consider the petitioners' representation dated 05.08.2013, which was already made to the respondent, without expressing anything on merits, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, in the light of the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8508 of 2011, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the result to the petitioners. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.